Sat 18-Feb-12 06:10 PM | edited Sat 18-Feb-12 06:11 PM by MotoMannequin
>Taking into consideration that: (1) f/5.6 is as sweet as f/8; >(2) modern 12MP 4/3" sensors (1/4 area, 1/2 linear) are >perfectly usable at up to f/11 and next generation with 16MP >is coming (Olympus OM-D); (3) the very best 35mm lenses may >record up to 60MP equivalent details; and (4) demand for more >and more megapixels from the market is strong even if not >rational - we still can wait another one step up to 48, 54 or >even 72 MP before diffraction at f/8 becomes intolerable. But >I am ready to bet - no 100MP 24*36mm camera will ever be >produced.
Ultimately Vlad you're spot-on. I did these tests years ago with my D300, and found that although diffraction was mathematically limited below f/11, the type of detail found in my real-world subjects didn't really fall apart until f/22, which meant I'd go to f/16-f/19 when necessary without worry, which covered the vast majority of landscape subjects anyway. I strongly believe you're better off with a diffracted in-focus subject than a theoretically sharp, out-of-focus subject (which doesn't exist in photography!) ...and if a tilt-shift lens isn't an option, focus stacking always is.
But yes I agree on the surface, diffraction limited below f/8.9 isn't really a limitation at all, and anyway the real-world limit is probably 2 stops further.